Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape Riots

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tan | 39 05:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Riots

[edit]
Runescape Riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod (well, not exactly, someone deleted the prod tag along with the rest of the article, and someone else figured that qualifies as a contested prod). List of incidents where groups of Runescape players disagreed with a change in the game. The only reference is the Runescape Wiki. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it, this kinda page can't have references because no one will right about it on the internet. So if you were there, then isn't that reliable enough? --24.40.134.221 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need mulitple souces with non trivual coverage that not related to the subject to meet WP:N. Comments of people involved is not enough.--76.66.191.154 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the bottom of the RS article (under player reaction or something) there's already a mention, with a 'citation needed' tag, therein lies the problem. Someoneanother 15:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, let me ask you this. Why does this page need references? It's quite obvious that you won't find this type of information on the internet, because it is describing an event in a computer game. Would you expect to find that online somewhere? If so, then go give me a link. We should make this an exception just to once, to the rules of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, let me put it this way: The very fact that "you won't find this type of information on the internet" is reason enough to not have an article on this topic. In fact, it is the very reason why this article has been nominated for deletion in the first place. Wikipedia refuses to be a primary or secondary source about anything, so basically, any article here must be based on the kind of sources that, according to you, doesn't exist. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for making an exception to policy just for this topic, the answer, of course, is no. However, there are several alternatives that you can consider. You could devote a MySpace page or a Facebook group to this topic. You could check whether what you want to write fits the Wikinews content guide. Those are just three options. You might find others, but it appears, at this point, that a Wikipedia article is currently not a viable option for coverage of this topic. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you people continue to enforce these rules, especially for an article that is well informed enough. Everyone in the world knows that Wikipedia is known for its lies already. Teachers at my school forbid students from using Wikipedia as a source b/c it has already been dubbed as "unreliable". In fact, I think that just a few months ago, there was a news article that was talking about Wikipedia's lies. My social studies teacher even said that Wikipedia once had Lincoln's killer's name wrong!

What you guys think your doing is trying to make Wikipedia seem a better source by enforcing these rules, when in reality you are really just making the people who love Wikipedia, (me), hate it. --Red Slayer 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Saying that there's no point enforcing rules on Wikipedia because it already contains misleading information is like saying that you might as well be racist because other people are. It's like a warped version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. On a separate note, we're not developing Wikipedia to entertain specific people but to create, as reliably as possible, an online encyclopaedia. I somehow can't see Encyclopædia Britannica deciding that any sort of sources are unnecessary as long as the people involved said it happened. Greg Tyler (t • c) 07:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Greg Tyler- Comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica is like comparing a mentally-impaired person to Einstein. Wikipedia will never get as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. --Red Slayer 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Replying to Mlauba- You can try, but you will fail. Wikipedia already ruined its reputation a while back and users like Greg Tyler thought that they were making Wikipedia better when in fact they were only making it worse. --Red Slayer 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Your opinions nonwithstanding, the future isn't set in stone. In the meantime, enforcing policies which prevent turning wikipedia into myspace or blogspot is a good way to restore its reputation bit by bit, even if it lessens your private enjoyment of the site.
  • That being said, allow me to assure you that if you ever mean to build a credible case against deletion for any article, petulantly dissmissing the efforts of everyone who works into changing the reality and perception of wikipedia is not the best way to go about it. MLauba (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Mlauba- So you're saying that keeping one page without references will turn Wikipedia into a myspace page/blog post. I think that you'd better get a dictionary and look up the meaning of a blog, cause this sure as heck isn't a blog.
  • Comment I suggest we cut the snark here. Check out WP:NPA before you continue this senseless tit-for-tat game - and if you nonetheless do, take it to my talk page. You're weakening your case. MLauba (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Mlauba- I am sorry if I hurt your feelings Mlauba, but you are also doing an personal attack with that weakening your cause talk. Check out WP:NPA for more information on how to avoid this. And I don't see how I am weakening my cause, and I still fail to recognize what your cause is. Please do tell me what it is--Red Slayer 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Sir, your point has repeatedly proved to be invalid, hence Mlauba was incorrect to say it was being weakened - there was nothing to weaken. The idea that Wikipedia is flawed with respect to certain articles is true. The idea that this means we should ignore policy to let something through which it seems nobody agrees with keeping is groundless and ludicrous. May I also point out that your continual defence of an article which isn't notable and has no reliable sources implies somewhat that you may be suffering from a conflict on interest. Greg Tyler (t • c) 21:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Greg Tyler's first comment- Thanks for calling me Sir, makes me feel important, but anyway, as I've said before, it is just one page. Why do we have to debate over one page. Will one page destroy the bases that hold Wikipedia? Will one page ruin all that we've worked for on Wikipedia? Will one page cause a civil war within Wikipedia? I think not--Red Slayer 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Replying to Greg Tyler's second comment- Again I fail to recognize who's side you're on--Red Slayer 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Replying to MuZemike- I was there! And if someone was there, then that makes it a primary source, not a secondary source. The only reason I used Runescape Wikia was because I never wrote about it, and, because of the rules of Wikipedia, I had to provide some sort of source--Red Slayer 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
  • Reliable secondary sources independent of the topic establish notability, not primary sources. Please read the verifiability policy. MuZemike 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Runescape Wikia is itself a primary source. What you need to provide is a secondary source, deemed reliable and at at least one step detached from the events. Which means, if a major newspaper uses the Runescape Wikia as a source, then Wikipedia may use the newspaper in question (not the wiki itself) as a source. As for your general argument that Wikipedia should make an exception for you, then, to be fair, it must make an exception for everybody. Might as well throw away its rules and abandon its primary purpose. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also present at a 'riot', happily minding my own business stood at the grand exchange while some poor little darling marched up and down typing "Roit Riot Roit!!!", being followed by other little darlings in awe of this righteous act, the net effect of which is about the same as an elderly labrador farting in its sleep. It comes down to reliable sources, the only WP can ascertain whether these actions had any effect on anything in RS is if someone actually does that research and publishes it for use. Until that happens these things will have to remain mutual back-slapping exercises on fan sites, along with countless other examples of nada being made out as landmark events. Someoneanother 00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a place for this conversation, you either present a reason for deletion or a reason for it to be kept or leave. Please bring your conversations off wiki. Rgoodermote  05:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with someoneanother here. Crafty (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable web incident not covered by reliable secondary sources. I also advise Valkyrie Red to keep a civil tongue in his mouth. What with this and his other activities he's likely to experience the sweet caress of a banhammer if he doesn't zip it. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced, and most likely entirely unsourcable (in terms of reliable secondary sources). I think the snowball clause could be justifiably invoked here. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete::The references first off are from another Wiki (something I'm quite sure has been frowned upon since forever) and second, the "riots" took place in a video game where the worst you could do is clog up the Internet traffic, unless this some how magically effects the real world and gains major attention from reputable sources, this article is useless and has no reason what so ever to be on Wikipedia. In addition I want to use WP:CRUFT as another reason for this to be deleted. Rgoodermote  22:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cruft with no reliable sources or notability -Halo (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Restored because an IP removed it. Rgoodermote  05:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Runescape_Riots&oldid=1176051999"